BA 744 Diversion to MAN (Merged)
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 516
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can I ask if the sector had been operated in the other direction, i.e LHR-LAX. Would continuing still be the preferred option?
[difficult qu. to answer with out the facts...so please speculate!]
[difficult qu. to answer with out the facts...so please speculate!]
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's unlikely that the flight would have continued to LAX if the problem had occurred at the same time in the reverse direction. The Captain would have first call on the decision but in consultation with the company I'm pretty sure they would have returned to London.
The aircraft would have to be returned from LAX empty on a 3-engine ferry and the passengers booked on that flight would have to be rebooked elsewhere. Far easier to turn round, send the bust aircraft back to its engineering base, put the pax on another BA flight and save a stack of money in the process.
Also, the flight over the Rockies to LAX will involve flight over high ground and assuming (as we always do the) the worst case of a second engine failing, you might be poorly placed. So, best bet all round is to go home and try again.
The aircraft would have to be returned from LAX empty on a 3-engine ferry and the passengers booked on that flight would have to be rebooked elsewhere. Far easier to turn round, send the bust aircraft back to its engineering base, put the pax on another BA flight and save a stack of money in the process.
Also, the flight over the Rockies to LAX will involve flight over high ground and assuming (as we always do the) the worst case of a second engine failing, you might be poorly placed. So, best bet all round is to go home and try again.
Usual disclaimers apply!
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: EGGW
Posts: 843
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can I ask if the sector had been operated in the other direction, i.e LHR-LAX. Would continuing still be the preferred option?
The decision to carry on from 'down route' to home is only taken after careful consideration of the enroute wx etc and is taken after consultation with maintrol, and in the case of an engine failure with the propulsion engineers.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For what it's worth, as a professional pilot...
We have clearly reached a turning point, we now have more spotters than PPs on the board!
This tread would only be about 2 pages long if we could do without spoon feeding PC pilots, card holders and wannabes all the basics over and over and over again.
Pax safe?
Aircraft safe?
Hat off!
But what do I know? I'm only an airline captain with a Visa card. And it's blue.
This tread would only be about 2 pages long if we could do without spoon feeding PC pilots, card holders and wannabes all the basics over and over and over again.
Pax safe?
Aircraft safe?
Hat off!
But what do I know? I'm only an airline captain with a Visa card. And it's blue.
m.mouse
Nah, not 'avin that.
You can get away with a lot on proon but that really is beyond the pale. Wash your keyboard out with soap and water.
Nice thread this. The headlines in the press when the facts come out in the open will be a leadwriters dream!!
Someone somewhere will get a reaming for this event and the main culprits (the beancounters) will as usual walk away scot free.
By the way baengman, you are either very brave or very stupid considering the current climate within BA Engineering, MAN.
Facts often do.
You can get away with a lot on proon but that really is beyond the pale. Wash your keyboard out with soap and water.
Nice thread this. The headlines in the press when the facts come out in the open will be a leadwriters dream!!
Someone somewhere will get a reaming for this event and the main culprits (the beancounters) will as usual walk away scot free.
By the way baengman, you are either very brave or very stupid considering the current climate within BA Engineering, MAN.
The headlines in the press when the facts come out in the open will be a leadwriters dream!!
"Terror as 747 runs out of fuel at 30,000ft"
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting thread.
I have no problem with a big 4-jet continuing following an engine loss, as long as there were no other systems failures which would significantly affect the operation. It's an accepted practice and that is what would appear to be the case in this instance.
If the aircraft was forced to accept a lower level by Oceanic, (and that does happen quite a lot), that could affect the fuel burn and one would hope that the crew re-planned accordingly. The arrival at MAN with just 5 tonnes does beg the question as to whether this re-plan was effective, or were there other factors involved.
The knowledge that 3t out of the 5t was unusable is very disconcerting. The 747 drinks fuel at a prodigious rate at low level and I would imagine that there was a certain amount of uneasiness on the flight deck.
It would be interesting to know the route the a/c took (presumably northern or polar), and whether diversions to KEF, GLA or similar were considered.
I arrived at LGW a few years back in a 330 with 12t and diverted to MAN due to extreme winds across southern England. It was a direct diversion from 26L to 24 with no delays and I shut down at MAN with 4t. That's on a reasonably economical twin - you can imagine how quick the remaining three 747 donkeys were drinking the fuel in this recent incident.
Are the AAIB involved at all? I suspect not as there were no damage or injuries. Will the occurrence be investigated in-house or on a wider stage? It seems to me that a long accident chain was put in place and only broken at the last moment.
Finally, I personally support any spotter's right to contribute to pprune, and am disappointed by some of the disparaging remarks on this thread - it portrays us (professional) pilots as snooty, aloof, arrogant armholes. Give them a break - they follow aviation closely and would probably give everything to be able to fly as a profession.
I have no problem with a big 4-jet continuing following an engine loss, as long as there were no other systems failures which would significantly affect the operation. It's an accepted practice and that is what would appear to be the case in this instance.
If the aircraft was forced to accept a lower level by Oceanic, (and that does happen quite a lot), that could affect the fuel burn and one would hope that the crew re-planned accordingly. The arrival at MAN with just 5 tonnes does beg the question as to whether this re-plan was effective, or were there other factors involved.
The knowledge that 3t out of the 5t was unusable is very disconcerting. The 747 drinks fuel at a prodigious rate at low level and I would imagine that there was a certain amount of uneasiness on the flight deck.
It would be interesting to know the route the a/c took (presumably northern or polar), and whether diversions to KEF, GLA or similar were considered.
I arrived at LGW a few years back in a 330 with 12t and diverted to MAN due to extreme winds across southern England. It was a direct diversion from 26L to 24 with no delays and I shut down at MAN with 4t. That's on a reasonably economical twin - you can imagine how quick the remaining three 747 donkeys were drinking the fuel in this recent incident.
Are the AAIB involved at all? I suspect not as there were no damage or injuries. Will the occurrence be investigated in-house or on a wider stage? It seems to me that a long accident chain was put in place and only broken at the last moment.
Finally, I personally support any spotter's right to contribute to pprune, and am disappointed by some of the disparaging remarks on this thread - it portrays us (professional) pilots as snooty, aloof, arrogant armholes. Give them a break - they follow aviation closely and would probably give everything to be able to fly as a profession.
It seems to me there are a lot of people making unqualified assumptions on this topic! Why not wait for the official word and quit speculating. Im sure the flight crew have been fully debriefed and had good reason for the decisions taken at the time. The aircraft landed safely and Im sure lessons have been learnt. Why not wait until they are published??
This is not BA bashing. Could have been any carrier. Accident investigations more often than not reveal not one single cause but a series of contributory factors. The very fact that this thread exists is because, by following company SOPs, what the crew believed to be a relatively safe operation (as so many of you go to great pains to point out) was compromised as they found themselves facing additional problems as the flight progressed. It all ended well but, let's be honest, not according to the SOP script. Don't let SOPs fool you into complacency. They're not infallible.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: here..
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If it is true, that the BA flight landed with a total of 5 tons remaining fuel onboard, of whitch only 2 tons was usable, I certainly see why the crew stated, that a go around was ruled out.
As far as I remember, we used 200KG/MIN as a rough figure for FF in landing configuration on the -400.
Landing with less than 10 tons of fuel onboard would trigger a voyage report as well!
The decision to continue the flight on three engines, given the very few "facts" available so far, sounds safe, and completely in line with SOP
s for that A/C type, however landing with 2 tons usable fuel, could/should have concerned the crew prior MAN.
Bearcat - exactly my thoughts!
As far as I remember, we used 200KG/MIN as a rough figure for FF in landing configuration on the -400.
Landing with less than 10 tons of fuel onboard would trigger a voyage report as well!
The decision to continue the flight on three engines, given the very few "facts" available so far, sounds safe, and completely in line with SOP
s for that A/C type, however landing with 2 tons usable fuel, could/should have concerned the crew prior MAN.
Bearcat - exactly my thoughts!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Fantasy Island
Posts: 555
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interjecting with my area of expertise, modern broadcast media have dictated that reality is inconsequential and perception is everything.
BA is currently perceived as the ultimate in safe air travel, perhaps even more so outside of its home market.
This could change, and could change very rapidly. You may consider this not to be based on reality (SOPs, 3-engine ops, ETOPs arguments etc.) but, as I've stated, this won't matter in the final outcome.
Personally, and this is based on reality, I would step onto a BA operated aeroplane without hesitation, and before any other airline in the world.
But the public who keep the airline afloat may begin to think differently.
It would be worth for a bean-counter to commoditise the value of negative reporting vs. the value of a return to LAX (e.g. in this case). They might be surprised at the answer....
BA is currently perceived as the ultimate in safe air travel, perhaps even more so outside of its home market.
This could change, and could change very rapidly. You may consider this not to be based on reality (SOPs, 3-engine ops, ETOPs arguments etc.) but, as I've stated, this won't matter in the final outcome.
Personally, and this is based on reality, I would step onto a BA operated aeroplane without hesitation, and before any other airline in the world.
But the public who keep the airline afloat may begin to think differently.
It would be worth for a bean-counter to commoditise the value of negative reporting vs. the value of a return to LAX (e.g. in this case). They might be surprised at the answer....
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Around the World
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I feel a bit strange, if I read statements by my fellow collegues that in their books the Pilots (or Company) did the right decision to PRESS on. Hey, the aircraft landed safely, the passengers were safe, so what is the big deal? Yes, the aircraft landed, the nobody was hurt. But the fact that this aircraft landed without having enough fuel for a G/A should speak for itself.
Incidents and Accidents are merely a caused by only one problem or technical faults, etc. It involves usually a chain of events. In my opinion the crew (or Company) did a very poor decision, by setting the risk level to a significant higher notch. And obviously they very caught by different (to the planned) wind conditions and ATC.
And an IFSD just after TO is a different story than one somewhere halfway to the destination.
Incidents and Accidents are merely a caused by only one problem or technical faults, etc. It involves usually a chain of events. In my opinion the crew (or Company) did a very poor decision, by setting the risk level to a significant higher notch. And obviously they very caught by different (to the planned) wind conditions and ATC.
And an IFSD just after TO is a different story than one somewhere halfway to the destination.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: waiting for higher
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would bet that if they had gotten to the stage of tanks 1, 3 and 4 dry, then the tank 2 normal pump would have started feeding - It happens from time to time that one of the pumps gives slightly less pressure than the others, and takes a while to start feeding (according to the fuel synoptic), even in the 4 engine case.
5t is therefore not too much of a drama (following a diversion).
However, in my book it would be quite a bold decision to continue across the very cold and remote bits of the atlantic on three.
5t is therefore not too much of a drama (following a diversion).
However, in my book it would be quite a bold decision to continue across the very cold and remote bits of the atlantic on three.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It has taken to Page 7 of this thread before we appear to have reached a consensus amongst the "professionals" that this could have developed into an accident and that landing with so little fuel needs some explaining.
Can anybody say how much fuel would have been needed to continue to Heathrow, plus the allowances for holding and diversion and still leave the company minimum landing fuel?
Can anybody say how much fuel would have been needed to continue to Heathrow, plus the allowances for holding and diversion and still leave the company minimum landing fuel?
